{"id":205714,"date":"2008-12-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008"},"modified":"2015-03-29T15:00:12","modified_gmt":"2015-03-29T09:30:12","slug":"new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"New India Assurance Company &#8230; vs Panimadha &#8230; 1St on 17 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">New India Assurance Company &#8230; vs Panimadha &#8230; 1St on 17 December, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated : 17\/12\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN\n\nC.M.A.(MD) No.1613 of 2007\nand M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007\n\nNew India Assurance Company Limited,\nRepresented by its Branch Manager,\nTheni.\t\t\t... Appellant\/2nd \t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t    Respondent\n\nVs\n\n1.Panimadha\t       ... 1st Respondent\/Petitioner\n\n2.Mrs.K.Dhanalakshmi   ... 2nd Respondent\/1st Respondent\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against\nthe judgment and decree dated 05.09.2006, passed in M.C.O.P.No.96 of 2005 by the\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional  District Judge, Fast Track Court\nNo.II), Tirunelveli.\n\n!For Appellant          ... Mr.R.Srinivasan\n^For 1st Respondent\t... Mr.S.Mani\nFor 2nd Respondent\t... Exparte before the\n\t\t\t\t   Tribunal\n* * * * *\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and<br \/>\ndecree dated 05.09.2006, passed in M.C.O.P.No.96 of 2005 by the Motor Accident<br \/>\nClaims Tribunal (Additional  District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II),<br \/>\nTirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent, 1st respondent is the petitioner<br \/>\nand the 2nd respondent is the 1st respondent before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The brief case of the petitioner in the claim petition is as follows:<br \/>\nOn 21.02.1999, when the petitioner was travelling on the back portion of the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s lorry bearing registration number TN-60-4705, in which they loaded<br \/>\nthe banana.  At about 8.00 P.M., while the lorry was coming in Sivakalai road,<br \/>\nthe driver of the lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner and capsized the<br \/>\nlorry on the southern side of the east-west road.  The petitioner sustained<br \/>\nfractures on left thigh bone and right thigh bone and sustained multiple<br \/>\ninjuries all over the body and subsequently, the petitioner&#8217;s legs were<br \/>\namputated from her thigh.  A criminal case was registered against the driver of<br \/>\nthe 1st respondent in Crime No.95 of 1999 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and<br \/>\n304(A) of I.P.C. on the file of the Srivaikuntam Police Station. The said lorry<br \/>\nwas insured with the second respondent. The petitioner was working as an<br \/>\nagricultural coolie worker and was earning a sum of Rs.3,000\/- per month.  Due<br \/>\nto the accident he lost his income.  Hence, he claimed a compensation of<br \/>\nRs.10,00,000\/- before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The 2nd respondent insurance company filed counter wherein it was<br \/>\ncontended that the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods carrying vehicle<br \/>\nand the passengers are not permitted to travel in the said vehicle; it is a<br \/>\nclear violation of the policy terms and conditions; in fact the petitioner along<br \/>\nwith others travelled on the top of the banana bunches; totally 36 persons were<br \/>\ntravelled in the goods vehicle;  the age, occupation, income and the injuries<br \/>\nare denied as false; the claim of Rs.10,00,000\/- is highly excessive and out of<br \/>\nall proportions and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Before the Tribunal, during joint trial with M.C.O.P.Nos.95 to 97 of<br \/>\n2005, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to<br \/>\nP.11 were marked and on the side of the respondents Ex.R.1 and R.2 were marked.<br \/>\nThe respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. On consideration of the evidence on both sides, the Tribunal fixed the<br \/>\ncompensation at Rs.6,15,000\/- (Rupees Six Lakh and Fifteen Thousand  only) with<br \/>\ninterest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.  In<br \/>\nthe said award the insurance company is directed to pay the compensation to the<br \/>\nclaimant at the first instance and then permitted to recover it from the owner<br \/>\nof the lorry.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Challenging the said award passed by the Tribunal, this appeal has been<br \/>\nfiled by the insurance company.  At the outset, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant fairly submitted that he is not disputing the rash and negligence of<br \/>\nthe driver of the lorry and he is disputing only the liability and the quantum<br \/>\nof compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The points for determination in this appeal are:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) Whether the appellant insurance company is liable to pay the<br \/>\ncompensation to the claimant at the first instance and then to recover the same<br \/>\nfrom the 2nd respondent herein?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) What is the just compensation?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Point (i) : The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 would show that 20 persons<br \/>\nwere travelling in the lorry at the time of the accident.  So, number of persons<br \/>\nwere travelling in the lorry. In paragraph 10 of its judgment, the tribunal<br \/>\nobserved that 37 persons were travelling in the lorry.  F.I.R. would show that<br \/>\n40 persons were travelling in the lorry.  Since it is a goods vehicle passengers<br \/>\nare not permitted to travel in it.  The learned counsel for the appellant argued<br \/>\nthat since the 1st respondent travelled in the goods vehicle as a passenger, she<br \/>\nis not entitled to any compensation from the insurance company.  The tribunal<br \/>\nhas observed that in respect of the same accident appeals were preferred before<br \/>\na Division Bench of this Court, wherein this Court has held that the persons<br \/>\ntravelled in the lorry are gratuitous passengers.  Since, the Division Bench of<br \/>\nthis Court has found that the persons travelled in the lorry are gratuitous<br \/>\npassengers, this Court is also of the view that the claimant is a gratuitous<br \/>\npassenger and the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the<br \/>\nclaimant.  In the said decision, the insurance company was directed to pay the<br \/>\ncompensation to the claimants at the first instance and get it recovered from<br \/>\nthe owner of the lorry. In the light of the above decision of a Division Bench<br \/>\nof this Court regarding the same accident, the insurance company is liable to<br \/>\npay the compensation to the claimant at the first instance and  can get it<br \/>\nrecovered from the owner of the vehicle.  Hence, I find no reason to interfere<br \/>\nwith the finding of the tribunal regarding the liability of the insurance<br \/>\ncompany.  Accordingly, this point is answered against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Point (ii):  Ex.P.7 is the accident register. It shows that the two<br \/>\nlegs of the claimant\/respondent was amputated.  P.W.2 Dr. Ramaguru deposed that<br \/>\nthe victim sustained 100% permanent disability.  Exs.P.10 and 11 photographs and<br \/>\nnegatives would show that the 35 year old lady is almost a living vegetable. So,<br \/>\nthe tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier method for assessing the loss of<br \/>\nincome. The tribunal has fixed his monthly as Rs.2,500\/-.   So his annual income<br \/>\ncomes to Rs.30,000\/-.  After deducting 1\/3rd income it comes to Rs.20,000\/-.<br \/>\nSince, the victim was aged 35 years old, the proper multiplier is 17.  If<br \/>\naccordingly worked out the loss of income comes to Rs.20,000\/- x 17 x 100% =<br \/>\nRs.3,40,000\/-.  So, the loss of income arrived at by the tribunal warrants no<br \/>\ninterference.  Considering the fact that the petitioner was treated as inpatient<br \/>\nfor 8 months and both of her legs were amputated, the tribunal awarded a sum of<br \/>\nRs.50,000\/- towards pain and sufferings, which is correct.  Though no receipts<br \/>\nwere produced  the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000\/- towards medical<br \/>\nexpenses and<br \/>\nRs.25,000\/- towards transport expenses and extra nourishment.  Considering the<br \/>\nperiod of treatment taken by the victim and the nature of the injuries sustained<br \/>\nby her, the said amount cannot be held as excessive.  Hence, I find no reason to<br \/>\ndiffer with the finding of the tribunal. Accordingly, point No.(ii) is also<br \/>\ndecided against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007 is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>sj\t<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,<br \/>\n(Fast Track Court No.II),<br \/>\nTirunelveli.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court New India Assurance Company &#8230; vs Panimadha &#8230; 1St on 17 December, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 17\/12\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN C.M.A.(MD) No.1613 of 2007 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2007 New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Theni. &#8230; Appellant\/2nd Respondent [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-205714","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>New India Assurance Company ... vs Panimadha ... 1St on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New India Assurance Company ... vs Panimadha ... 1St on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-29T09:30:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"New India Assurance Company &#8230; vs Panimadha &#8230; 1St on 17 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-29T09:30:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1155,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008\",\"name\":\"New India Assurance Company ... vs Panimadha ... 1St on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-29T09:30:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"New India Assurance Company &#8230; vs Panimadha &#8230; 1St on 17 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"New India Assurance Company ... vs Panimadha ... 1St on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New India Assurance Company ... vs Panimadha ... 1St on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-29T09:30:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"New India Assurance Company &#8230; vs Panimadha &#8230; 1St on 17 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-29T09:30:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008"},"wordCount":1155,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008","name":"New India Assurance Company ... vs Panimadha ... 1St on 17 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-29T09:30:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/new-india-assurance-company-vs-panimadha-1st-on-17-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"New India Assurance Company &#8230; vs Panimadha &#8230; 1St on 17 December, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205714","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=205714"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205714\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205714"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}